[Advaita-l] How does Brahman witness everything?
Michael Chandra Cohen
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com
Fri May 27 12:27:15 EDT 2022
Hi Greg, nice thread of discussion! Are you still sponsoring Advaita
classes in NYC?
Just as asmat and yushmad are linked incomprehensively, so too sAkshi and
sAkshya are so linked - one will not appear without the other. Of course,
sAkshi is unchanging svarupa so how will it change to appear as sAkshya?
Appearance does not entail change like snake/rope or blue sky.
"Hence (*ityataḥ*/and so), the superimposition (*adhyāsaḥ*) of the object
which is represented by notion ‘you’ and its attributes (*dharmāṇāṁ*) on
the subject which is represented by the notion ‘I’ (*asmat pratyaya gocare*)
... shall equally be illogical (*mithyeti bhavitum yuktam*).
//..In spite of the other not being an object of sense perception (
*apratyakṣe*), ignorant people superimpose place dirt on space (*ākāśe
bālāḥ talamalinat*), etc. on it.
//...In the same way (*evam*) he superimposes (*adhyasyati*) the internal
organ that produces (*aśeṣa svapracārasākṣiṇi*/completely showing one’s
self) the one who has the object of the “I” thought with all his activities
(*ahaṁ pratyayinam*) on the inner Self (*pratyagātmānaṁ*), the witness of
the entire modification of the internal organ (*pratyagātmānaṁ sarva
sākṣiṇaṁ*) and vice versa the inner Self (*viparyayeṇā antaḥkaraṇādiṣu*),
the all-witness is superimposed on the internal organ and the rest. Such is
this (*evam ayam*) superimposition (*adhyāso*) which is without beginning
and the end (*anādirananto*), natural (*naisargiko'*), delusive (
*mithyāpratyayarūpaḥ*) and productive of the notion of agency and
enjoyership (*kartṛtva bhoktṛtva pravartakaḥ*)(in the individual self) and
which is experienced by all (*sarvalokapratyakṣaḥ*). -Adhyasa Bhasya"
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:03 PM KAMESWARARAO MULA via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Dear Sh. Srrenivasa Murthy,
> I request you kindly to have a good and solid foundation of
> True, I don't have much knowledge on Upanishadic Teachings as I never
> studied them thoroughly.As advised , I will try to read into deep aspects
> of Upanishads over a period of time. Thank you
> Then , but your mentioned that: Sakshi cannot be sakshyam. But Sakshyam is
> Sakshi only.
> I don't agree with the above statement according to Indian LAW:
> Sakshi (Witnessed) & Sakshyam (Evidence) are different, both shoundn't be
> same, never be.
> You say Sakshyam is Sakshi only: WRONG, Judge won't agree, Saskhyam
> (Evidence) Can't be Sakshi (Witnessed)
> SAKSHI (Witnessed): He has seen that, he will say that he was there at
> that place, he witnessed it, But he can never be an eidence (sakshyam)
> SAKSHYAM(Evidence): It can be a person/object/material/any thing
> It is required to make the Judgement and who shouldn't be the SAKSHI, Then
> there arises a biasedness.
> Hope I am clear in views.
> Learners are requested to add their valuable comments
> There are no two things like sakshi and sakshi according to Upanishads.
> NO Both are different, they can't be the same.
> Sri Guru Padaravindarpana Mastu
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list